nature vs nurture
Levitt Life Sciences, Society and Policy 2013, 9:13 http://www.lsspjournal.com/content/9/1/13 RESEARCH ARTICLE
Open Access
Perceptions of nature, nurture and behaviour
Mairi Levitt
Correspondence:
m.levitt@lancaster.ac.uk
Department of Politics, Philosophy and Religious Studies, Lancaster
University, County South, Lancaster
LA1 4YL, UK
Abstract
Trying to separate out nature and nurture as explanations for behaviour, as in classic genetic studies of twins and families, is now said to be both impossible and unproductive. In practice the nature-nurture model persists as a way of framing discussion on the causes of behaviour in genetic research papers, as well as in the media and lay debate. Social and environmental theories of crime have been dominant in criminology and in public policy while biological theories have been seen as outdated and discredited. Recently, research into genetic variations associated with aggressive and antisocial behaviour has received more attention in the media. This paper explores ideas on the role of nature and nurture in violent and antisocial behaviour through interviews and open-ended questionnaires among lay publics. There was general agreement that everybody’s behaviour is influenced to varying degrees by both genetic and environmental factors but deterministic accounts of causation, except in exceptional circumstances, were rejected. Only an emphasis on nature was seen as dangerous in its consequences, for society and for individuals themselves. Whereas academic researchers approach the debate from their disciplinary perspectives which may or may not engage with practical and policy issues, the key issue for the public was what sort of explanations of behaviour will lead to the best outcomes for all concerned.
Keywords: Nature and nurture; Genes and environment; Genes and crime;
Behavioural genetics
Perceptions of nature, nurture and behaviour
Trying to separate out nature and nurture as explanations for behaviour, as in
Open Access
Perceptions of nature, nurture and behaviour
Mairi Levitt
Correspondence:
m.levitt@lancaster.ac.uk
Department of Politics, Philosophy and Religious Studies, Lancaster
University, County South, Lancaster
LA1 4YL, UK
Abstract
Trying to separate out nature and nurture as explanations for behaviour, as in classic genetic studies of twins and families, is now said to be both impossible and unproductive. In practice the nature-nurture model persists as a way of framing discussion on the causes of behaviour in genetic research papers, as well as in the media and lay debate. Social and environmental theories of crime have been dominant in criminology and in public policy while biological theories have been seen as outdated and discredited. Recently, research into genetic variations associated with aggressive and antisocial behaviour has received more attention in the media. This paper explores ideas on the role of nature and nurture in violent and antisocial behaviour through interviews and open-ended questionnaires among lay publics. There was general agreement that everybody’s behaviour is influenced to varying degrees by both genetic and environmental factors but deterministic accounts of causation, except in exceptional circumstances, were rejected. Only an emphasis on nature was seen as dangerous in its consequences, for society and for individuals themselves. Whereas academic researchers approach the debate from their disciplinary perspectives which may or may not engage with practical and policy issues, the key issue for the public was what sort of explanations of behaviour will lead to the best outcomes for all concerned.
Keywords: Nature and nurture; Genes and environment; Genes and crime;
Behavioural genetics
Perceptions of nature, nurture and behaviour
Trying to separate out nature and nurture as explanations for behaviour, as in
References: Anderson, P, KF Butcher, and DW Schanzenbach. 2007. Childhood obesity and disadvantage: is nature trumping nurture? NBER working paper No Bearman, P. 2008. Exploring genetics and social structure. American Journal of Sociology 114(Suppl;S1): v–x. p.vi. Brescianini, S, A Volzone, C Fagnani, V Patriarca, V Grimaldi, R Lanni, L Serino, P Mastroiacovo, and MA Stazi. 2011. Genetic and environmental factors shape infant sleep patterns: a study of 18-month-old twins Buchen, L. 2010. In their nurture – can epigenetics underlie the enduring effects for a mother’s love. Nature 467: 146–148. Campbell, E, and LF Ross. 2004. Attitudes of healthcare professionals and parents regarding genetic testing for violent traits in childhood Caspi, A, et al. 2002. Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science 2(5582): 851–854. Claassen, L, L Henneman, R De Vet, D Knol, T Marteau, and D Timmermans. 2010. Fatalistic responses to different types of genetic risk information: Exploring the role of Self-Malleability Condit, CM. 2010. When do people deploy genetic determinism? A review pointing to te need for multi-Factorial theories of public utilization of scientific discourses Cooper, JA, A Walsh, and L Ellis. 2010. Is criminology moving toward a paradigm shift? Evidence from a Survey of the American Society of Criminology Journal of Criminal Justice Education 21(3): 332–347. Craddock, N. 2011. Horses for courses: the need for pragmatism and realism as well as balance and caution. A commentary on Angel DeLisa, M, JP Wright, MG Vaughn, and KM Beaver. 2010. Nature and nurture by definition means both: a response to males Denno, DW. 2009. Behavioral genetics evidence in criminal cases: 1994–2007. In The impact of behavioral sciences on criminal law, ed Dixon, M. 2005. Brave new choices: behavioural genetics and public policy. London: IPPR. Farahany, NA, and JE Coleman Jr. 2006. Genetics and responsibility: to know the criminal from the Crime. Law and Contemporary Problems 69: 115–162. Fotaki, M. 2011. Agency versus structure or nature versus nurture: when the new twist on an old debate is not that new after all: a commentary on Angel Giddens, A. 2009. Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Haralambos, M, and M Holborn. 2004. Sociology themes and perspectives. London: Collins Educational. Horstkötter, D, R Berghmans, C de Ruiter, A Krumeich, and G de Wert. 2012. “We are also normal human beings, you know” Keller, EF. 2010. The mirage of a space between nature and nurture. Durham & London: Duke University Press. Lea, R, and G Chambers. 2007. Monamine oxidase, addiction and the ‘warrior’ gene hypothesis. The New Zealand Medical Journal 120: 1250 Levitt, M. 2013. Genes, environment and responsibility for violent behaviour: ‘Whatever genes one has it is preferable that you are prevented from going around stabbing people’ Levitt, M, and E Pieri. 2009. “It could just be an additional test couldn’t it?” Genetic testing for susceptibility to aggression and violence Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2002. Genetics and human behaviour: the ethical context. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Parens, E, ER Chapman, and N N. Press (eds.). 2006. Wrestling with behavioural genetics. Science, ethics and public conversation Powledge, TM. 2011. Behavioral Epigenetics: How nurture shapes nature. Biosciences 61: 588–592. Traynor, BJ, and AB Singleton. 2010. Nature versus nurture: death of a dogma, and the road ahead. Neuron 68: 196–200. Walsh, A. 2009. Biology and criminality. The biosocial synthesis. Oxon: Routledge.